Victory in Yucca Mountain Lawsuit;

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Court Overrules Government's Lax Radiation Standards for Nuclear Waste

Statement of Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook

Today's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) illegally set its
radiation release standards for groundwater for the proposed high-level
radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, marks a major victory for citizens of Nevada, for the environment and for science over
politics.

The EPA set 10,000 years as the period during which radiation in
the groundwater cannot exceed drinking water standards at the site's
boundary, but this time frame would not protect the health of future
generations. As the court ruled, the Energy Policy Act requires that the
EPA determine public health and safety standards for Yucca Mountain
"based upon and consistent with" the National Academy of Sciences'
recommendations. The Academy's recommendation is that the compliance
period should extend through the time of the peak risk for radiation
doses from the repository, which studies show are likely to occur in
300,000 years or more. To compensate for Yucca's geologic unsuitability,
the EPA ignored the findings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"It would have been one thing had EPA taken the Academy's
recommendations into account and then tailored a standard that
accommodated the agency's policy concerns. But that is not what EPA
did," the Court wrote in its ruling. "Instead, it unabashedly rejected
NAS's findings, and then went on to promulgate a dramatically different
standard, one that the Academy had expressly rejected."

Given this ruling, the Yucca Mountain Project should be
finished. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must show that it can
prevent groundwater contamination above drinking water standards at the
compliance boundary for 300,000 years - a standard that the DOE's own
analysis shows the Yucca Mountain site cannot meet. The EPA faces the
choice of either appealing the decision or revising its standard. The
rules have been bent too often to promote Yucca Mountain. We will be
watching closely to see if the EPA makes a wise choice and protects
future generations, as the court mandated.

To read the court's decision, go to
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf.

I have an idea! Let's overhaul the EPA. The current crowd - I don't know what/who they're protecting - it ain't the environment or humanity! There are other examples of their deficiencies. Feel free to post them here, or give your opinion. I know some folks would like to do away with the whole concept of "environmental protection" because it might stand in the way of profit. Instead we need to strengthen it. What do you think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,763 • Replies: 24

No top replies

The Yucca Mountain site , as well as the entire HLNR program has been going on since before the Reagan years. It has involved spending of incredible amounts of money to research institutions, consultants , and special interest groups to conduct studies that, in themselves, are not difficult science. The politics of NIMBY and BANANA will now result in almost toxic levels of nuclear waste materials to build up in relatively unprotected areas around each nuclear facility in the US. Talk about sensitive targets for terrorists.

0 Replies

Oh, to live on Yucca Mountain
With the radiation and the colored balloons,
You can't be twenty on Yucca Mountain
Though you're thinking that
you're leaving there too soon,
You're leaving there too soon.

0 Replies

Okay, Cav! Wink

Farmerman, Just so you know, I'm not trying to place the blame on Bush. (if you were thinking that)! I was an anti-nuke protestor in the 70s. Too bad nobody took heed. This problem was foreseen long ago. We've had decades to put serious money into developing safer, cleaner alternatives. It's not the fault of NIMBYers!
The question is, if the EPA doesn't care to protect us, who will? What the hell do we do?

0 Replies

The fact is that, as a byproduct of the nuclear industry, we now have thousands of tons of spent fuel and contaminated water that needs to be stored in a repository. Otherwise we have hundreds of potential dirty bomb targets sitting near metro areas. If we hadnt gotten in to the nuke business, then we wouldnt have this dilemma. However we did, and nobody was that prescient at the time when the exploitation of "The peaceful atom" was going gandbusters. Walt Disney was a major proponent of atomic energy and spread the benefits of an atomic society when I was a kid in grade swchool in 1959. Simply saying that we had decades to put research money up for clean technologies avoids the history of the worldwide "bandwagon" for nuclear power and (honest to Christ-even nuclear airplanes)
Being a nuclear activist is good but the only area that conforms to the "Stable craton" location is the central US but even here weve got shallow ground water and evidence of cataclysmic tectonic events (New Madrid).
Ive seen the model runs of the Yucca Mountain site and they appear reasonable and accurate. The fact that we cant guarantee 300000 years performance will, no doubt, eliminate all the potential sites for such a repository. Now what, I considere it a pyhhric victory cause its gonna have acute environmental effects at many sites instead of one manageable risk at a single site.

I think that the BLM,EPA,Interior,BIA,FERC, and a number of other agencies can be criticized for their heavy handed approach. BUT , with that agreement, wheres the place that all this nuke material can go? If thats not NIMBY, then we disagree on the term.

AS far as Bush goes, hes a footnote. Hes not bright enough to take part in the debate . EPA has slowly been dismantled for about 10 years beginning with Clinton and , thats one of the few substantive issues I have against Clinton.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The fact is that, as a byproduct of the nuclear industry, we now have thousands of tons of spent fuel and contaminated water that needs to be stored in a repository. Otherwise we have hundreds of potential dirty bomb targets sitting near metro areas. If we hadnt gotten in to the nuke business, then we wouldnt have this dilemma. However we did, and nobody was that prescient at the time when the exploitation of "The peaceful atom" was going gandbusters. Walt Disney was a major proponent of atomic energy and spread the benefits of an atomic society when I was a kid in grade swchool in 1959. Simply saying that we had decades to put research money up for clean technologies avoids the history of the worldwide "bandwagon" for nuclear power and (honest to Christ-even nuclear airplanes)
Being a nuclear activist is good but the only area that conforms to the "Stable craton" location is the central US but even here weve got shallow ground water and evidence of cataclysmic tectonic events (New Madrid).
Ive seen the model runs of the Yucca Mountain site and they appear reasonable and accurate. The fact that we cant guarantee 300000 years performance will, no doubt, eliminate all the potential sites for such a repository. Now what, I considere it a pyhhric victory cause its gonna have acute environmental effects at many sites instead of one manageable risk at a single site.

I think that the BLM,EPA,Interior,BIA,FERC, and a number of other agencies can be criticized for their heavy handed approach. BUT , with that agreement, wheres the place that all this nuke material can go? If thats not NIMBY, then we disagree on the term.

How about the moon? Or Mars? How about we send it towards the sun and when it gets close enough it just blows? This is a serious question.

0 Replies

bi, thats actually been looked at as a solution. However the risk boys have deemed that the numbers of potential catastrophic failures of a rocket load of nuke rods in the atmosphere would be the equivalent of like 5 above ground major bomb tests, should the rocket explode. That was put right out then.
They also looked at dumping it into active subduction zones and maybe this will rear up again, I dont know. I testified on the whole selection process back in the 80s and my words were, like a presidential race.
"Many times we have to select the least harmful option'

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

bi, thats actually been looked at as a solution. However the risk boys have deemed that the numbers of potential catastrophic failures of a rocket load of nuke rods in the atmosphere would be the equivalent of like 5 above ground major bomb tests, should the rocket explode. That was put right out then.
They also looked at dumping it into active subduction zones and maybe this will rear up again, I dont know. I testified on the whole selection process back in the 80s and my words were, like a presidential race.
"Many times we have to select the least harmful option'

So rather than take a chance that a rocket full of radioactive rods might screw up in space, we will continue to leave them scattered around here where we know they're going to screw things up eventually......nice......

0 Replies

that sounded like an adversarial remark directed towards you farmer....it wasn't meant to be.....it's early and I haven't had enough to drink to be insulting yet.. Very Happy

0 Replies

Wow, BP, you really think blasting it off is a good solution? Smile

That is another huge risk. I remember it's being discussed off and on, and I think the idea is repulsive. No offense.
I have two points here, neither of which solves the current problem:
1. How about we quit taking on heady stuff like this before we know all the facts and the solutions? Our constant need for immediate self-gratification is causing us to simply worry about it tomorrow, when it becomes our children's childrens problem instead of our own. I've said it before: mankind will bring about its own downfall. Too bad.
2. How can we get us a new EPA that actually does the "P" part?
Okay, one more thing. Even if we have to, as you say, Farmerman, choose one site and call it "manageable risk", we're still up the creek. We're still creating more waste every day. Where's that gonna go?
God, it makes me sick.
I remember bits and pieces about the whole fission/fusion thing, with fusion being the cleaner alternative. What became of that?

0 Replies

no offense taken. I wish the guys in charge would think thngs through BEFORE they did them, instead of rushing off half cocked and then weighing risks after the horse was already out of the barn.....

0 Replies

Exactly! Or at least listen to the rest of us.
Sometimes we're right.

0 Replies

science rarely works like that. We discover things waay before we discover their consequences. Im sorry if that hasnt been brought up . We had no abilities or methods to measure radioactivity in the picocurie levels till the mid 70's by then we started to better understand chronic versus acute dosage.
Im not taking a side , Ive just been involved in a number of nuke disposal studies that , because of inabilities to make decisions, we accomplish nothing.
Suzy-Youve made my point, having a whole bunch of individual piles is more difficult to control than one repository.
bi-shooting off into space has built in a "mort" calculation that states that "X" percent of the nuke fuel rocket loads are gonna come crashing back to earth and will disperse semi hot radioactive crap into our foodchain. That kind of calculation assumes that this WILL happen . I too am frustrated when I live downwind of tMI and across the River from the Salem NJ nuke.

Also, it isnt an either or situation. We cant develop both fusionand fission. We dont know how to sustain fusion reaactions to this day, fission is simple Physical chemistry. Any suitably motivated high school kid with the smarts,a desire, a modem, and a source of fissionable material and some ANFO could whip up a small nuclear device. Hell probably die from self inflicted radioactivity poisoning , but a kid could do it.
Fusion is a lot tougher, the boundary conditions for sustainability are still beyond the DOE researc labs.

0 Replies

farmerman I worked for Babcock and Wilcox for nine months in 1968 if you can believe it...and we had those film badges that we turned i once a month and if it didn't read above a certain amount we were okay.

We used to RUB U238 powder (I worked over in cermet) on our hands and then bet on who could make the needle on the counter by the door go highest, so I know what you mean about not knowing **** back in the day. I shudder every time I think of it.

0 Replies

"having a whole bunch of individual piles is more difficult to control than one repository."

Aaargghh! Maybe so, but a huge depository makes it that much more volatile if the worst should happen, doesn't it?

And maybe they didn't know everything by the 70s, and maybe it was already too late, but by then they knew the dangers inherent in the technology, and continued to build away. We could have lessened the impact we are facing today. Even back then there was a profit/loss consideration that took priority. As it ever was, so it shall be. Or however that goes.

Ugh, I don't know. Our bodies are already filled with chemicals and crap that isn't supposed to be there, courtesy of living in the civilized world. We will probably end up distributing a set amount to each state so we will all get only a little poisoned. Maybe not enough to die, and just mutate a little bit! With our radioactive food and water and air, we will sure be a brave new world! Sad

It's a little depressing.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The fact is that, as a byproduct of the nuclear industry, we now have thousands of tons of spent fuel and contaminated water that needs to be stored in a repository. Otherwise we have hundreds of potential dirty bomb targets sitting near metro areas. If we hadnt gotten in to the nuke business, then we wouldnt have this dilemma. However we did, and nobody was that prescient at the time when the exploitation of "The peaceful atom" was going gandbusters. Walt Disney was a major proponent of atomic energy and spread the benefits of an atomic society when I was a kid in grade swchool in 1959. Simply saying that we had decades to put research money up for clean technologies avoids the history of the worldwide "bandwagon" for nuclear power and (honest to Christ-even nuclear airplanes)
Being a nuclear activist is good but the only area that conforms to the "Stable craton" location is the central US but even here weve got shallow ground water and evidence of cataclysmic tectonic events (New Madrid).
Ive seen the model runs of the Yucca Mountain site and they appear reasonable and accurate. The fact that we cant guarantee 300000 years performance will, no doubt, eliminate all the potential sites for such a repository. Now what, I considere it a pyhhric victory cause its gonna have acute environmental effects at many sites instead of one manageable risk at a single site.

I think that the BLM,EPA,Interior,BIA,FERC, and a number of other agencies can be criticized for their heavy handed approach. BUT , with that agreement, wheres the place that all this nuke material can go? If thats not NIMBY, then we disagree on the term.

AS far as Bush goes, hes a footnote. Hes not bright enough to take part in the debate . EPA has slowly been dismantled for about 10 years beginning with Clinton and , thats one of the few substantive issues I have against Clinton.

What he said.

I've worked on one of those local repository impact projects. What ever problems Yucca Mountain presents the alternative are much much worse

0 Replies

This is truly a glowing set of circumstances.

0 Replies

LW, that is really not a joke. What was being "cleaned up" on the nuclear plant property I was working on was both revealing and scary.

Victory in Yucca Mountain Lawsuit;

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know